A- I have switched from Comodo Firewall Pro (CFP3) to Online Armor (OA) + Threatfire (TF). 1- I have long considered OA to be THE best hips/firewall -- right at the jagged bleeding edge of the state-of-the-art, in my opinion -- except that it lacks (a) file protection & (b) full-scope registry protection. 2- I recently came to the realization that TF's option for the user to set custom rules would enable me to use it for file & registry protection, PLUS gain the advantage of TF's excellent behavior blocker. 3- Thus I came to the logical conclusion that OA+TF would make a good security combo. B- I have several reasons for switching away from CFP3 -- here are just few... 1- CFP's system tray icon gives NO clue whatsoever as to (a) whether or not the FW is running, & (b) whether D+ is in learning mode, or is disabled, or is set at paranoid, or WHATever. Thus, it is all too easy to run with a disabled CFP, while incorrectly thinking one's computer to be protected. 2- If you opt for NO logs, you run blind as to which rule is blocking whatever it is you're trying to do. On the other hand, if you opt to activate CFP's logging, it logs tooooo bloody dadgummed much -- plus I could never find a way to clean out the old stuff. 3- Most off-putting of all is the the fact that configuring CFP correctly is difficult to learn. Inputting configurations is made harder (not easier) by an unnecessarily convoluted, non-intuitive GUI design. (Compared with configuring CFP, configuring OA is child's play -- actually FUN to do.) C- As to the degree of protection afforded by OA+TF versus CFP3 -- I am not a tester. As a purely subjective opinion, I feel that OA+TF affords at least as good protection -- maybe even a tad better -- than CFP. I do hope that aigle or Kees1958 or some other person with testing know-how will run a more *scientific* comparison.